Hello. I was using NeroAacEnc as long as I was active Windows user. Not long time ago I began to use Ubuntu and my goal was to get the same experience. And few days ago I've tried Linux version of my favorite codec. When I compared encoded files, I noticed that they slightly defferent in the beginning and in the end of the file. In the figures below you can see the beginning of the file.

Fig.1 Source

Fig.2 Made by Linux version

Fig.3 Made by Windows version

Fig.4 Made by Windows version in Ubuntu through the Wine

To tell the truth - I can't hear any difference between those files. But it makes me crazy. Why they are different and why this difference appears only in the beginning and the end of the file? And which of the version is more accurate? I've tried to find the answer by myself but didn't succeed.

P.S. Excuse me for big pictures but I can't understand how spoiler tag is working here and I don't now how to hide them.

Oh, sorry, I totally forgot about it. This program (Sonic Visualizer) can't work directly with AAC. It only works with WAV, FLAC and some others maybe. Convert my AAC files to FLAC was the most suitable for me. All AAC files was converted to FLAC in Windows with MeGUI. I think it shouldn't interfere the comparison.

If compare figures 2 and 3, you can notice differences around 14KHz. And again, such differences only occur at the beginning and the end of the file. At this figures you can notice that right part of screenshots are identicall.

lvqcl,Thank you for your answer. I have a dilemma at now. To use native Linux version or to use Windows version through the Wine. Maybe other options. I have to think about it.

You know, it's some kind of paranoia. I will think that Linux version works slightly different from Windows one. And every moment I will encode my music, I will think that it can be encoded inproperly.

And the most annoying is that using Windows version through the Wine is not the decision. Because I think that the Wine can bring more errors at encoding process than anything else.

I, for one, would be curious if two different builds of what was supposed to be the same application, would produce different output. Just because I couldn't hear the difference in a single sample, it doesn't mean it isn't due to a bug.

Lossy encoders are well known to frequently produce negligibly differing output between different builds, such as those produced by different compilers, all else being identical. Being compiled on/for a different operating system with different APIs and suchlike is just going to increase the probability. This should not be surprising!

In other words, I doubt that the differences here are in any way significant. _faber_, your ears seem to agree with that conclusion. That’s both sufficient and necessary as far as Hydrogenaudio is concerned!

And hey: on the off-chance that you’ve uncovered something that actually matters, you’ll have helped the developers: everyone wins.

_faber_ it has been proven that iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder is better than Nero AAC encoder, why don't you use for example foobar2000 + qaac/qtaacenc if you care so much about the "I can't even ear the difference" different?

PSI will post the many hearing test I saw around asap, I need to find them.

_faber_ it has been proven that iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder is better than Nero AAC encoder, why don't you use for example foobar2000 + qaac/qtaacenc if you care so much about the "I can't even ear the difference" different?

PSI will post the many hearing test I saw around asap, I need to find them.

_faber_ it has been proven that iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder is better than Nero AAC encoder, why don't you use for example foobar2000 + qaac/qtaacenc if you care so much about the "I can't even ear the difference" different?

PSI will post the many hearing test I saw around asap, I need to find them.

Do I bin this post now or are you still working on the never-ending task of proving your claim for all listeners, all samples over all bitrates and modes?

That is very important point indeed.

Not being a smart hat but here is my point of view:

all bitrates:Here is no doubt. The results of public tests aren't interpolable to other bitrates. Though there is still some information (a hint) what to expect for similar bitrates (close to tested bitrate).

all listenersIt depends of amount of results/listeners and how big the difference was.

More than 10 results per sample + significant difference is enough to say that it's valid for average listener. So it's safe to say that Apple AAC encoder is better than Nero's at 96-100 kbps for average listener and it's true for absolutely all listeners who have submited complete results . We don't need every single human to participate in public tests.

Now, there was a statistical difference between Fhg and Apple AAC encoders but both were on par for some individuals so it's not safe to say that Apple is better than FhG for all listeners but it is for an average one ... at 96 kbps.

all samplesIf the number of samples is high enough (it's case for HA public tests) then it's safe to say that codec A is better than codec B for average material.

_faber_ it has been proven that iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder is better than Nero AAC encoder, why don't you use for example foobar2000 + qaac/qtaacenc if you care so much about the "I can't even ear the difference" different?

PSI will post the many hearing test I saw around asap, I need to find them.

_faber_ it has been proven that iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder is better than Nero AAC encoder, why don't you use for example foobar2000 + qaac/qtaacenc if you care so much about the "I can't even ear the difference" different?

PSI will post the many hearing test I saw around asap, I need to find them.